G.R. No. L-4253 October 31, 1951
CHARLES K. ANDREU, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Charles K. Andreu, claiming to be stateless and born in Latvia, applied for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged continuous residence in Manila since April 17, 1940, irreproachable conduct, and practice as an architect and contractor without any criminal conviction. He was arrested on June 24, 1946, by order of the Commissioner of Immigration and, without a prior hearing, was ordered deported on December 18, 1946. An attempt to deport him to Shanghai from May 16 to June 2, 1947, failed as he was refused admission (due to lack of proper visa per respondents). Upon return, he was detained at the Immigrant Station until his provisional release on December 9, 1947 (by the President, per respondents). He resumed his profession but was rearrested on March 20, 1948, and flown to Cebu for deportation aboard Russian vessels, but the ship masters refused to take him aboard (for lack of Russian government permission, per respondents). He remained detained thereafter. A previous habeas corpus petition (G.R. No. L-2838) was denied on September 16, 1949. He claimed detention for 13 months since that denial and 46 months since his initial arrest.
The respondents, in their return, denied petitioner was stateless and asserted he was investigated by the Deportation Board on charges of being an undesirable alien who gained entry by fraudulent means, engaged in espionage, failed to register as an alien under Com. Act No. 653, was a habitual drunkard, and lacked visible means of support. The Board recommended deportation, and the President ordered it. Respondents argued detention was necessary for national security while deportation arrangements were made and that the issue was already adjudicated in the prior petition.

ISSUE

Whether the indefinite detention of the petitioner for deportation, after failed deportation attempts and a prolonged period, is lawful.

RULING

The Court, adhering to its rulings in Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, Borovsky vs. Commissioner of Immigration, and Chirskoff vs. Commissioner of Immigration, granted the writ. The Court presumed the espionage charges did not fall under the President’s Proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus (October 22, 1950), as the Solicitor General did not allege such in the return. The Court held that indefinite detention under these circumstances was not justified. The petitioner was ordered released under the following terms and conditions: he shall be placed under the surveillance of immigration authorities in a manner adequate to ensure he keeps peace and is available for deportation when the government is ready; the reasonableness of surveillance is subject to court review; and he shall post a bond of P5,000 as authorized by Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 613. No costs were awarded.